Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Fiji

Lautabui v State [2003] FJCA 55; AAU0012E & AAU0003E.2002S (14 November 2003)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI ISLANDS
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT, FIJI ISLAND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. AAU0012 OF 2002S
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. AAU0003 OF 2002S
(High Court Criminal Action No. HAC009/2001)

BETWEEN:

LEONE LAUTABUI
SEMESA ROKO
JONASA TONAWAI
Appellants

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Before: Penlington, JA

Hearing: Friday 14th November 2003, Suva

Counsel: Ms P. Narayan for Lautabui
Mr. N. Vere for Roko
Mr. A.R. Matabalavu for Tonawai
Mr. P. Ridgway for the Respondent

MINUTE OF PENLINGTON JA (IN COURT FOR CHAMBERS)

In the judgment of this court delivered earlier today in these appeals and other appeals the court ordered under Section 30 of the Court of Appeal Act 1990 that counsel be assigned to the appellants Lautabui and Roko for the purposes of the preparation for and hearing of their appeals against conviction for murder. In that judgment the court limited the fee payable to each counsel to two thousand dollars.

I record that Ms P. Narayan appeared before me today as counsel for Lautabui and Mr. N. Vere appeared as counsel for Roko. Each counsel confirmed acceptance of the assignment for the fee stated.

In the High Court Lautabui and Roko stood their trial along with the other appellant Tonawai. He too was convicted and subsequently appealed. He retained his trial counsel Mr. A.R. Matabalavu for his appeal. Mr. Matabalavu also appeared before me today.

Mr. Vere was Roko’s trial counsel. On the other hand Ms Narayan is fresh to the case.

The appeal is listed for hearing on Tuesday next 18 November. Tonawai’s counsel has filed detailed grounds of appeal.

Lautabui and Roko separately appealed filing their own notices of appeal. Until today they have not had counsel to conduct their appeals.

The immediate question for decision is the fate of next week’s fixture. Clearly that fixture is premature for Mr. Vere and Ms Narayan. There is time available in the week commencing Monday 24 November. The alternative is a March fixture.

Mr. Matabalavu helpfully indicated that he had no objection to the appeals of all three appellants being heard together. Indeed he submitted that that would be the just and proper course to take. I agree. He indicated that a March hearing would be acceptable to him.

Ms Narayan for Lautabui submitted that it would be unfair to her client if his appeal proceeded in the week commencing Monday 24 November (which would be the alternative to a March fixture). She said that she needed time to consider the extensive record of the trial, consider the grounds of appeal and, if necessary, amend them and generally take instructions. She accordingly sought a March fixture.

Mr. Vere indicated that while he would be prepared to proceed in the week commencing Monday 24 November he had no objection to a March fixture.

Mr. Ridgway for the State emphasised the complexities of the case, a point mentioned in the judgment delivered earlier today. He supported a March fixture. In his view because of the complexities of the case he considered that the hearing in this court could last up to a day.

I am satisfied that in the interests of justice next week’s fixture must be vacated, that a hearing in the week commencing Monday 24 November is not feasible and that there should therefore be a March fixture.

I therefore make the following orders:

1. The fixture on Tuesday 18 November 2003 is vacated.
2. The appeals are adjourned to the March 2004 sitting. They will have a fixture on Monday 15 March 2004 at 9.30am.
3. All appellants are granted leave to file and serve amended grounds of appeal.
4. Amended grounds of appeal (if any) are to be filed and served by 6 February 2004.
5. Appellants submissions to be filed and served by 6 February 2004.
6. The State’s submissions in opposition to the appeal to be filed and served by 20 February 2004.
7. Appellants replies to be filed and served by 5 March 2004.
   

Penlington JA